This is too funny. These idiots think that gravity makes noise and that the sounds can be detected. More than that, they say space (nonbeing) and time (tic-toc?) make noise as well. Do you have your tinfoil hat ready? Forget the Electric Universe. I offer you the Holographic Universe: Holographic Universe: Discovery Could Herald New Era In Fundamental Physics.
Craig Hogan, a physicist at Fermilab Centre for Particle Astrophysics in Illinois is convinced that he has found proof in the data of the gravitational wave detector GEO600 of a holographic Universe – and that his ideas could explain mysterious noise in the detector data that has not been explained so far.Indeed. Or a new era of insanity.
The British-German team behind the GEO600, which includes scientists from the School of Physics and Astronomy's Gravitational Physics Group, will now carry out new experiments in the coming months to yield more evidence about Craig Hogan's assumptions. If proved correct, it could help in the quest to bring together quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of gravity.
In order to test the theory of holographic noise, the frequency of GEO600´s maximum sensitivity will be shifted towards ever higher frequencies. The frequency of maximum sensitivity is the tone that the detector can hear best. It is normally adjusted to offer the best chance for hearing exploding stars or merging black holes.
Even if it turns out that the mysterious noise is the same at high frequencies as at the lower ones, this will not constitute proof for Hogan's hypothesis. It would, however, provide a strong motivation for further study. The sensitivity of GEO600 will then be significantly improved by using 'squeezed vacuum' and by the installation of a mode filter in a new vacuum chamber. The technology of 'squeezed vacuum' was particularly refined in Hannover and would be used in a gravitational wave detector for the first time.
Professor Jim Hough of Glasgow University, one of the pioneer developers of gravitational wave detectors, says: 'Craig Hogan made a very interesting prediction. It may be the first of a number of unexpected possibilities to be investigated as gravitational wave detectors become more sensitive.'
Professor Bernard Schutz, Professor at the School of Physics and Astronomy, member of the Gravitational Physics Group at the School, and recently elected as an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society said: "It would be truly remarkable if GEO600 is sensitive to the quantum nature of space and time. The only way to confirm that would be to carry out controlled experiments, the results of which can be solely attributed to holographic noise. Such an experiment would herald a new era in fundamental physics".
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
12 comments:
*snort*...."space makes noise"?...lol.
Clearly, either they have something or....they're just insane.
WHEN FAILURE THREATENS THE PROJECT FIND SOMETHING NEW -- FAST
This report comes from a project that was designed to detect one of the critical predictions of Einstein's General Relativity theory: Namely, "gravitational waves.
Only one little bitty problem:
No "gravitational waves" have ever been detected! Even though a bundle of money has been spent on the quest all over the world.
Of course, the fact that no "gravitational waves" have ever been found is downplayed as reflected in this 2007 California Institute of Technology press release: "They did not, however, measure any gravitational waves in the aftermath of the burst."
But you can't keep a good program down as the press release in the next sentence states, I kid you not:
"That non-detection was itself significant."
Wow!
And remember nobody else has ever detected these "gravitational waves" either.
And this is not an isolated incident: A June 2008 press release from a different "gravitational wave" detection program also came up empty:
"The analysis revealed no signs of gravitational waves. But, say the scientists, this result is itself important because it provides information about the pulsar and its structure.”
But as one can read they managed to put the best "face" on it as possible.
Now, it must also be said that these failures do achieve one positive result: They falsify the theory of "gravitational waves" that was an integral prediction of Einstein's gravitational theory and so are a direct falsification of General Relativity.
But you would never get that from the press releases. No, all you get is everything is "milk and honey."
A solid presentation of these setbacks for "gravity" are presented, here: The Weakening Gravity-Dominated Cosmos Theory, January 21, 2009(thunderbolts.info) -- "Neutron stars and their rapidly spinning pulsar manifestations are among the most outlandish creations bogging down modern astrophysics."
"Neutron stars were first proposed as a theoretical possibility in 1933 by Baade and Zwicky. In seeking an explanation for the energy released by supernovae (a term coined by Zwicky), they proposed that a supernova was the result of a normal star transitioning to a neutron star."
The significance of this failure is clear: Conventional astronomy declares the existence of "neutron" stars with an arrogance that would be stunning for any other area of science (considering the amount of evidence), but in which they engage routinely. But they haven't been able to prove "neutron" stars independently of X-ray and Gamma ray emmissions which don't necessarily prove that "neutron" stars exist at all. But if they could show that "neutron" stars exist by detecting a phenomenon only predicted by General Relativity theory (read 'gravity theory') then that would lock it up and they could declare another "proof" for General Relativity theory and for "neutron" stars as well. Kinda a "two birds with one stone" approach.
But so far it has completely backfired because it falsifies both theories.
Which finally gets us back around to OilIsMastery's Post:
What do you do when the project has failed to detect what it was designed for?
Ignore the failure and claim results that shed light on something else that is really "cool!"
No matter how outlandish.
In other words: "Don't shut down the project."
Because the real 'news' in the report is what they don't say: No detection of any "gravity waves."
Of course, these unexplained "noises", actually unexplained electromagnetic emissions are most likely the results of electromagnetic forces, otherwise known as electric currents.
Notice the report doesn't describe the "noises" any more than that, "noises."
But identifying the noises as electromagnetic emissions would be too easy, and would suggest an association that runs counter to the prevailing "school" of thought.
So instead come up with the wild and exotic idea of a holographic Universe.
This is an example of the crisis in astronomy, today.
Anaconda,
I agree. The crisis seems to be due to illiteracy, ignorance, and a lack of education.
I would be willing to bet money that these so-called "scientists" have never read Aristotle's Physics in their entire lives.
The math analogue would be geometers who have never read Euclid's Elements.
Also, remember that science keeps improving, the more time goes on, the more research and the more scientists that participate in the research and ask new questions.
There's evidence for this throughout history in the fields of Physics, Biology, Paleontology, Astronomy, etc.
Also, remember that science keeps improving, the more time goes on, the more research and the more scientists that participate in the research and ask new questions.
There's evidence for this throughout history in the fields of Physics, Biology, Paleontology, Astronomy, etc.
WHEN ASTRONOMY SAYS MAGNETISM -- THINK, "ELECTRIC CURRENTS"
Why?
Because magnetism is ONLY caused by electric currents. Period, end of story -- you might be able to argue about what causes the electric currents, but not the magnetic fields that are produced by electric currents.
Objectin: What about a bar magnet.
Good question.
But a bar magnet is the result of iron molecules being arrayed in a formation that allows the electrons to orbit in an arrayed pattern that generates the magnetic field.
The directional oriented motion of electrons generate a magnetic field.
So, Google interplanetary magnetic fields.
Google interstellar magnetic fields.
Or galactic magnetic fields.
And just remember, while the scientific paper won't mention electric currents, there is only one one to get a magnetic field...you guessed it...electric currents.
THE DETECTION OF FILAMENTS IN DEEP SPACE
A common objection to electromagnetism having a major role in the structure and dynamics of the Universe is a reasonable one: Where is the evidence?
But the objection has an equally reasonable answer: Synchrotron radiation, which is only caused by electrons spiralling around a magnetic field at relativistic speeds (near the speed of light), which is by definition is electric current, and the presence of magnetic fields that are only caused by electric current as pointed out in my previous comment.
Birkeland currents are described as filaments of electric current in space.
So, the next common objection is where are the filaments in deep space?
Again, the response is that filaments have been detected.
See, Galactic 'spaghetti monster' powered by magnetic fields, August 20, 2008(NewScientist) -- "Long-lived magnetic fields are sustaining a mammoth network of spaghetti-like gas filaments around a black hole, a new study suggests. Previously, it was not clear what prevented the delicate filaments from being destroyed by competing gravitational forces."
Cut out the reference to "black hole".
Nowhere is it mentioned in the article that magnetic fields are caused only by electric currents, or are the two words "electric current" printed in the article.
The closest the article gets to "electric current" are these several passages:
"They show the gas filaments seem to be made up of a number of thin threads. These threads are so tenuous that magnetic fields are the only thing that can protect them from being destroyed, says Fabian."
"The magnetic fields, thought to get their start close to NGC 1275's black hole, hold onto the filaments because they wield influence over charged particles - such as protons and electrons - in the filaments' gas."
Notice, the word "plasma" is never used in the article, instead the misleading term "gas" is used.
"Fabian and colleagues calculate that they are maintained by magnetic fields that are only 0.01% as strong as the field on the Earth's surface."
See the beautiful picture of the filaments: galaxy NCG 1275
Now, another beautiful picture of filaments of galaxy M87 and a much more complete description and discussion of exactly what they are: The Braided Filaments of Galaxy M87, February 05, 2009(thunderbolts.info) -- "The electrical nature of the first "galactic jet" observed by Curtis in 1918 has been confirmed once again."
"Recent Chandra X-ray Observatory composite images of M87, a large active galaxy in the Virgo Cluster, have revealed the braided, filamentary nature of its "jet." Such braiding is the signature of Birkeland currents in space. Electromagnetic forces pinch the current channels into long filaments in defiance of gravity and gas laws."
The picture of the filaments is quite clear.
Now the question is put to the readers, which article does a better job of informing its audience?
What is most disapointing about the NewScientist article and other treatments in the mainstream science media is that they still could mention the "dreaded" or "beloved" black hole, depending on your point of view, and simply state the "black hole" causes the electric current that causes the magnetic field.
But they don't.
Why?
Because allowing electromagnetism (electric current) to stand side-by-side with the "black hole" would possibly raise some uncomfortable questions in the minds of the readers:
Why haven't those electric currents ever been mentioned before?
How do they know they are are electric currents?
(Which would take a detailed explanation, but would reveal that astronomy should have known about them all the time.)
How do they know the "black hole" caused the electric currents?
(Answer: Astronomy doesn't know, nor does astronomy know how the "black hole" would cause the current -- something about "accretion disks".)
Is there an alternative theory besides the "black hole" to explain the presence of the electric currents?
(Answer: Yes, there is an alternative theory and it's called Plasma Cosmology)
How come I've never read about this alternative theory?
(Answer: Because mainstream astronomy doesn't want to talk about it.)
(Answer: because conventional astronomy and their handmaidens in the science media want to convince their audience of the reality of "black holes".)
So, you can see why just the mention of electric currents raises all kinds of uncomfortable questions.
Another example of the crisis in astronomy, today.
OBJECTION: ANACONDA IS COMPARING APPLES TO ORANGES
Okay, I'll bite, so let's compare apples to apples.
Sound fair?
The following is a description and discussion of the exactly the same galaxy M1275 that was described in the NewScientist article -- apples to apples as it were.
Forever Blowing Bubbles, August 25, 2008(thunderbolts.info) -- "The Hubble Space Telescope team refers to the active elliptical galaxy NGC 1275 in the nearby Perseus Cluster as a “magnetic monster” with a black hole at its core. However, the filamentary structure indicates electrical activity."
Compare the two articles.
Oh, wait before you compare, let's throw in another mainstream science media article on galaxy M1275:
Hubble Sees Magnetic Monster In Erupting Galaxy, August 20, 2008(ScienceDaily) -- "The Hubble Space Telescope has found the answer to a long-standing puzzle by resolving giant but delicate filaments shaped by a strong magnetic field around the active galaxy NGC 1275. It is the most striking example of the influence of these immense tentacles of extragalactic magnetic fields, say researchers."
And why not another beautiful picture to boot (different color scheme from the NewScientist article): galaxy M1275
In some ways the ScienceDaily article provides more detail than the NewScientist article, in some ways definitely not.
ScienceDaily passes along the description of NASA: "It is an active galaxy, hosting a supermassive black hole at its core, which blows bubbles of radio-wave emitting material into the surrounding cluster gas."
"blows bubbles"...???
What is this, a Don Ho flash back: "tiny bubbles"?
But never does the ScienceDaily article describe the filaments as having, "charged particles - such as protons and electrons - in the filaments' gas," as does the NewScientist article.
Which is the closest either article gets to mentioning the word "plasma" which could clue in some readers that they are talking about an electromagnetic phenomenon.
But SpaceDaily states: "Its most spectacular feature is the lacy filigree of gaseous filaments reaching out beyond the galaxy into the multi-million degree X-ray emitting gas that fills the cluster."
NewScientist never mentions the X-ray emitting gas, ahem, plasma.
The X-rays might raise more uncomfortable questions in conjunction with "charged particles - such as protons and electrons - in the filaments' gas," ahem, plasma.
Of course, neither bother to mention the X-rays are not being emitted from a “hot gas”, but plasma emitting synchrotron radiation by electrons spiraling in the direction of the magnetic field and that this is only caused by electric current.
And all the above processes and states of matter are part of electromagnetism.
But you say, "what's the big deal? If you want the full scoop go ahead and read the NASA report directly. How many casual readers are going to bother finding the NASA report and how much more would it really tell the reader?
So, which of the articles among the three linked to gives the readers the most information so that the reader can decide for himself what is going on in galaxy M1275?
You make the call in the comfort of your own living room.
Bonus Question: Are the two mainstream articles attempting to explain all the various dynamics involved or are they attempting to sell the reality of a "black hole" at the center of the galaxy?
And is it possible the reason why the additional information is not included in the two mainstream articles is because it might interfer with their goal of selling the "black hole" theory?
Noise is a general engineering term for background interference of the signal being processed. Any forcing function that is external to the intended signal is called noise.
QF,
Thanks. Should I say sound instead of noise or is noise ok in this context?
IS A "HISS" CONSIDERED A "NOISE"?
@ Quantum_Flux:
QF states: "Noise is a general engineering term for background interference of the signal being processed. Any forcing function that is external to the intended signal is called noise."
Okay. But is a "hiss" considered a "noise"?
Why do I ask?
Well, consider this article:
Origin Of Hiss In Upper Atmosphere Identified, March 6, 2008(ScienceDaily) -- "Scientists have solved a 40-year-old puzzle by identifying the origin of the intense radio waves in the Earth's upper atmosphere that control the dynamics of the Van Allen radiation belts -- belts consisting of high-energy electrons that can damage satellites and spacecraft and pose a risk to astronauts performing activities outside their spacecraft."
And further:
"The source of these low-frequency radio waves, which are known as plasmaspheric hiss, turns out to be not lightning or instabilities from a plasma, as previously proposed, but an intense electromagnetic wave type called "chorus," which energizes electrons and was initially thought to be unrelated to hiss, said Jacob Bortnik, a researcher with the UCLA Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences."
"'That chorus waves are the dominant source of plasmaspheric hiss was a complete surprise,' said Bortnik."
And the schematic of the Earth's electromagnetic "shells" presented with the article is interesting, too.
Could this "hiss" detected right, here, next to the Earth and now identified by analogous to the "noise" that is detected in the posted article?
If so, then then the causality is more in line with electromagnetic forces then some exotic Holographic Universe.
WHAT CAUSES THE "HISS"?
As the ScienceDaily articles states: "[The] hiss, turns out to be...an intense electromagnetic wave type called "chorus," which energizes electrons..."
Unanswered is the question, what causes the electromagnetic wave?
Post a Comment